Posted on 08/01/2005 10:06:00 AM PDT by cll
Though most Hispanic Americans are unaware of it, let alone the population at large, we still have on the books our own Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu.
I am referring to the Insular Cases, a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court between 1901 and 1922. Collectively they held that the inhabitants of the then newly unincorporated territories acquired after the 1898 Spanish-American War - the last remaining and most populous of which is Puerto Rico - do not enjoy all the rights otherwise afforded to people in the states under our Constitution. Dred Scott, holding African-Americans were not full citizens, in many ways precipitated the Civil War. Plessy upheld the doctrine of ``separate but equal.'' And, in Korematsu, the court upheld the forcible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But while those awful precedents have since been overturned, the Insular Cases still affect the lives of our citizens in the territories.
In justifying the court's refusal to extend all constitutional protections to the peoples of the territories, Justice Henry Brown wrote that the newly acquired territories ``are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws . . . and modes of thought, such that the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible.'' That time for Puerto Rico's 4 million citizens has lasted 106 years.
One surely wonders how much longer the court thinks it should take to extend the full blessings and protections of our Constitution to the people of that island.
Justice John Harlan understood well the implications of the court's holding, stating in dissent, with his usual eloquence: ``The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces – the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them - is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.'' People in Puerto Rico have remained, as the court's dissenters anticipated they would, in an ``intermediate state of ambiguous existence for an indefinite period,'' and - without any doubt - second-class citizens with no right to vote in presidential elections, with no voting representation in Congress and with no right to equal treatment in federal programs.
Such is the absurdity of the present situation that citizens residing abroad have, in many respects, more rights on foreign soil than those citizens would have within U.S. territory. For example, if a citizen moved to North Korea, he could still cast an absentee ballot for president in his former state of residence. Not, however, if he moved to Puerto Rico. Similarly, citizens living in Puerto Rico have only the right to receive a fraction of the Social Security benefits that mainland citizens or mainland citizens who have retired abroad enjoy, though all pay the same in taxes.
While senators are sure to attempt to determine Judge John G. Roberts' views on the most contentious issues of our time, they would do well to also inquire into the nominee's view on the continued validity of the Insular Cases. Determining his view on that issue will not only shed light on the impact of a Justice Roberts on millions of our fellow citizens who, by accident of birth or choice, happen to live in territories, but would have the benefit of disclosing his view on the extraterritorial application of the Constitution, an issue with particular relevance now that we detain prisoners in places such as Guantnamo Bay, Cuba.
With Hispanics now the largest minority in the country, and the possible nomination of the first Hispanic-American justice later, it might be time to have the court reconsider the Insular Cases.
With luck, we may not have to wait much longer if a Justice Roberts lives up to Justice Harlan's standards and, by leading the court to overturn these unfortunate precedents, affirms that great justice's views that the ``Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'' Those words still hold special resonance in the territories.
Orlando Vidal is an attorney with Sullivan & Worcester.
The people of Puerto Rico vote, time and time again, to maintain their territorial commonwealth status rather than opt for independence or statehood, do they not?
No. See http://wwwcefus.net
And this is not about the political status of the islands. It is about civil rights for U.S. Citizens.
The people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States.
"We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organize ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, to promote the general welfare, and to secure for ourselves and our posterity the complete enjoyment of human rights, placing our trust in Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America.
In so doing, we declare:
The democratic system is fundamental to the life of the Puerto Rican community
We understand that the democratic system of government is one in which the will of the people is the source of public power, the political order is subordinate to the rights of man, and the free participation of the citizen in collective decisions is assured
We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; the co-existence in Puerto Rico of the two great cultures of the American Hemisphere; our fervor for education; our faith in justice; our devotion to the courageous, industrious, and peaceful way of life; our fidelity to individual human values above and beyond social position, racial differences, and economic interests; and our hope for a better world based on these principles" - Preamble, Puerto Rico Constitution, July 25, 1952
No, they choose not to become a STATE, they are, however citizens of the US. Alot of them go into the military, where they serve with honor.
Nobody's forcing them to live in Puerto Rico. They want the full rights of citizens, they need to move or vote to approve statehood for PR. If they choose to remain in a territory, they have to live with the conditions inherent in that residence.
Harlan was also the lone dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Truly one of the greatest Supreme Court justices.
Even among Puerto Ricans, there is much dispute over the island's status. One acquaintance of mine shook her head at the very idea of making her native island either a state or a country: "Oh, no, it would all go wrong very quickly because the corruption would get even worse and there would be a civil war." My friend was alarmist perhaps in the certainty of her fears, but she is no fool.
Even by generous definitions, genuine, fully functioning democracy and rule of law are rare in Latin American history and culture. My preference is to give Puerto Rico independence and then let them petition for statehood after a minimum of ten years. I do not relish the idea of a civil war in an American state, with resonant strife among Puerto Ricans in the US.
Here we go again... Buen suerte, amigo :)
I like Puerto Rico, but this is another case of trying to get a judge to deliver what the voters will not deliver.
They could have statehood tomorrow if they voted to have it. Their preference is to remain a territory, and merely renegotiate the terms of their territorial status. I don't think a judge should over-rule that desire.
Full statehood, or independence, should be a decision democratically taken after a full debate and internal conversation among the Puerto Ricans themselves. It should not be dictated by a judge.
My mistake, didn't know Puerto Rican's had full citizenship. Still, the question is statehood. If they want a vote at the Federal Level, then choose statehood. If they want to be independant, then revoke citizenship and move on.
Dred Scott essentially ruled Blacks were not human and therefor were not afforded natural rights (via Citizenship). Pretty nasty, and a long way from the rights of territories.
Puerto Ricans are full citizens of the US. They do not need a visa to visit the mainland and you don't need one to visit the island or to live there, it is US territory.
The terms of their territorial status mean that they are under US federal law, and all of the US federal institutions are present on the island. The question is, since they are US citizens, shouldn't they have full statehood rights...
But so far the preference of people living on the island is to preserve the status quo. There is almost no support for independence, there is a fairly strong movement for statehood, but so far the majority prefer to renegotiate the terms of the territorial agreement but remain a territory. The rough political split is between the island's equivalent of the Republican Party, for statehood, and the island Democrat equivalent, for territorial status. Thats not exactly fair, but its roughly correct I believe.
Pro-statehood voters are almost equal to pro-status-quo, but not quite able to beat them in an election on that issue.
Isn't anyone going to comment on how overheated, vile and disgusting the headline is? Dred Scott protected slavery, for crying out loud! I don't see any Puerto Ricans being bound in leg irons, picking cotton in the hot sun for 18 hours, while a slavemaster mercilessly lashes their backs with a bull whip.
Give me a frickin' break, people! Talk about hyperbole.
Puerto Ricans are citizens and do, in fact, receive ALL civil rights afforded to citizens. They absolutely can, and do, vote for federal office when they reside in a state. Many Puerto Ricans establish dual residencies, in fact, so they can live tax-free in Puerto Rico, and vote in New York.
While Puerto Ricans can and do vote, the COMMONWEALTH of Puerto Rico does not get represented in the U.S. Congress. That is the will of the people of Puerto Rico, who have voted not to become a state on several occasions.
The Boston globe simply wants 7 more Democratic representatives and two more Democratic senators, and so they are trying to frame the issue in an insulting and degrading way so as to make Puerto Ricans feel victimized. The Insular Cases were overturned by federal action in the 1950s, when they were given full rights.
"And this is not about the political status of the islands. It is about civil rights for U.S. Citizens."
So, what do the Peurto Rican people want.
I read some articles on the site you linked to (after fixing the typo).
They appeared to be of the opinion that the only real option was for Peurto Rico to become an independent nation with ties to the US. They did mention that there were other options but dismissed them as unrealistic.
That's one opinion, and it seems well though out.
However, it's clearly not the only opinion.
The Peurto Rican government got around to asking Congress and the President to express commitment to resolving the issue.
Well, that says a lot of nothing.
Do they want statehood, which provides many benefits, but requires a sacrifice of independence and uniqueness? It would also require paying federal income taxes.
Do they want to ask for even more independence?
Do they want to become a new, special kind of state with more freedom for self government and more ability to maintain their distinct culture?
Personally I think all our States should take back the power stolen from them by the Federal government that is not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
I think that Peurto Ricans should be given the full rights and responsibilities that any other citizens have, however it needs to be something they want or it won't work very well.
Thanks, I caught my error after I posted.
I think they would make one hell of a state, and I hope they do gain statehood. They would be my next vacation spot if they do.
"They would be my next vacation spot if they do"
Puerto Rico is already a great place to vacation. FreepMail me if you want more info.
I was just checking PR out on the web. It'll be a while before I get the chance however.
You do have a beautiful country/territory. I'd be proud to have it part of the Union as a state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.